Making an absolute judgement on the behaviour of Jefferson w.r.t. slaves is tricky at best because he was absolutely typical of his era. He just didn't know any better.

We can judge him on his hypocrisy, though, and make the point that he was a man, he was fallible, and his views and ideas are not the be-all-and-end-all they're often made out to be.

The Constitution of the US, like anything, should be an evolving mechanism. Finished products are for decadent minds, to paraphrase Asimov.

Watch this one doublepost now too…

“if by 'interesting' you mean 'pretty standard for the South at that time' then you're probably right.”
Irrespective of whether those views were standard, don't necessarily make it right for someone who was so vocal about the abolition of slavery to be involved in slavery themselves. Anyway by “interesting” I did actually mean “interesting”. Google it cos I can't remember all the details now

Meanwhile Jefferson was from the South so he probably had a Plantation and if by 'interesting' you mean 'pretty standard for the South at that time' then you're probably right.

Thats what you get when you get distracted halfway through writing a sentence (and don't proof-reading properly). I meant “pretty interesting”; “completely interesting” sounds a bit over-eager :p

Thats what you get when you get distracted halfway through writing a sentence (and don't proof-reading properly). I meant “pretty interesting”; “completely interesting” sounds a bit over-eager :p

I quite admire certain bits of how the American government is structured, but the way the constitution is seen as some sort of “sacred” document has to be one of the stupidest things about it.

I quite admire certain bits of how the American government is structured, but the way the constitution is seen as some sort of “sacred” document has to be one of the stupidest things about it.

Maybe most of the language does specificy “free men” but the famous line I was referring to:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Is pretty unequivocal, unless the meaning of “men” is modified by some evil legalese elsewhere.

And don't worry about forgetting to comment, it happens often.

IIRC using the 2nd amendment to justify the individual's right to bear arms is a complete bastardisation of what the actual intent was. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” – that wasn't meant to mean that individuals should have the right to have a private collection of weapons. It's about the right of the state to have a militia, and for people to “keep and bear arms” for use in that militia. It's completely outdated! The argument that it's “unconstitutional” to have tough gun laws is just really retarded.

I meant to comment last time you wrote about this, but I forgot…